Pax Silica Could've Been Better Discussed Under a Parliamentary System
.jpg) |
| No gossip, no hearsay, face-to-face debates, liars are slapped in the parliamentary system! |
Right now, it's best to look at both sides of the equation. We don't want to automatically say, "No to Pax Silica!" or "Yes to Pax Silica!" without understanding that, "Can we have Pax Silica with these adjustments?" I was thinking about how being for or against Pax Silica isn't purely black and white. I discourage thinking in black and white thinking, like how Makabayan Bloc deals with Pax Silica. I would like to write this post to show why the Philippines needs to go for the parliamentary system instead of the usual status quo.
And also a warning to those who keep insisting that "But Marcos Years were parliamentary!" need to try telling that to the real parliamentary countries like Singapore and Malaysia!
Unfortunately, under the presidential system, the very thing that Rep. Atty. Jose Manuel "Chel" Diokno has said about Pax Silica can easily drown in the background noise. Instead, we look at these statements by Diokno, where he says this: "Is it right to hurry Pax Silica? We need to have real consultation with the local community, do a proper study of how it will affect nature, and let's be sure that the cost of water and electricity doesn't increase." This doesn't sound like automatically for or against Pax Silica. Instead, Diokno is simply putting the middle ground, something I advocate.
If we remember our history, Otso Diretso was a coalition during the Duterte Administration. It was said that entering them into the Senate was for checks and balances. However, the big problem is that in the presidential system, you really end up scrambling people more often than not. For example, former president Atty. Rodrigo R. Duterte (PDP-Laban) had Naga City's Mayor Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" Gerona-Robredo (Liberal Party of the Philippines) as his vice president. It was indeed too scattered because people voted based on personalities over parties. In fact, Otso Diretso lost the midterm elections in 2018.
How a parliamentary system could discuss Pax Silica
The real problem with the parliamentary system is the lack of a clearly defined opposition. Sure, Atty. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan and Senator Paolo Benigno "Bam" A. Aquino have both won. The Liberal Party may have Senator Ann Theresia "Risa" Hontiveros-Baraquel and others. However, I find this to be more of a fragmented opposition, not a united opposition. In fact, Kiko and Bam should by all means, right now see that the parliamentary system would've given a better way to discuss Pax Silica, instead of just questioning President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. today, and no real question and answer.
Under a parliamentary system, we would have Team Bongbong (Government) and Team Leni (Opposition). Bongbong can't just propose Pax Silica. Leni would be legally mandated to provide alternatives. One could imagine the conversation during the weekly question hour would be. Team Marcos and Team Robredo would have their exchange. It would require civil discussion. Bongbong can say this and Leni can say that. However, because Leni has her entire party behind her, the solutions aren't hers either. Instead, Leni can say, "The Opposition would like to question how we want to do Pax Silica. We, however, have decided that it would be better to open the technology sector and we can focus on mineral diplomacy instead, like Vietnam."
The parliamentary system would sort things out. Results can be like:
- Yes to Pax Silica. The project is deemed helpful.
- However, the Opposition's proposal that Pax Silica start smaller to avoid a sudden drain of resources, or that it be widespread instead, is also helpful.
- Pax Silica was rejected because the Philippines' climate may not fit it. Instead, we go for mineral diplomacy like Vietnam when it comes to technology.
It's not a zero-sum game, and winner takes all. Instead, it's all about finding the best solutions.
